Key result
LAPS2 and Premier+ models best predict in-hospital ADHF mortality with C-statistics around ~0.80.
Why the study?
Do administrative and EHR-based mortality prediction models outperform clinical models in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
Observational (n=13,163)
Yes
Do administrative and EHR-based mortality prediction models outperform clinical models in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
Effect estimate: C-statistic 0.80 for LAPS2, 0.81 for Premier+ (95% CI 0.78-0.82)
p-value: p=<0.001
EHR-based and administrative models (LAPS2, Premier+) outperform older clinical models in predicting in-hospital mortality for acute decompensated heart failure.
EHR-based models may aid ADHF mortality prediction; extends validation of LAPS2/Premier+ but leaves clinical adoption open.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) inpatient mortality prediction models can help clinicians make treatment decisions and researchers conduct observational studies; however, published models have not been validated in external populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the performance of 7 models that predict inpatient mortality in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: 4 HF-specific mortality prediction models developed from 3 clinical databases (ADHERE [Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry], EFFECT study [Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment], and GWTG-HF registry [Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure]); 2 administrative HF mortality prediction models (Premier, Premier+); and a model that uses clinical data but is not specific for HF (Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score [LAPS2]). Using a multihospital, electronic health record-derived data set (HealthFacts [Cerner Corp], 2010-2012), we identified patients ≥18 years admitted with HF. Of 13 163 eligible patients, median age was 74 years; half were women; and 27% were black. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Model-predicted mortality ranges varied: Premier+ (0.8%-23.1%), LAPS2 (0.7%-19.0%), ADHERE (1.2%-17.4%), EFFECT (1.0%-12.8%), GWTG-Eapen (1.2%-13.8%), and GWTG-Peterson (1.1%-12.8%). The LAPS2 and Premier models outperformed the clinical models (C statistics: LAPS2 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.78-0.82], Premier models 0.81 [95% confidence interval 0.79-0.83] and 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.74-0.78], and clinical models 0.68 to 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Four clinically derived, inpatient, HF mortality models exhibited similar performance, with C statistics near 0.70. Three other models, 1 developed in electronic health record data and 2 developed in administrative data, also were predictive, with C statistics from 0.76 to 0.80. Because every model performed acceptably, the decision to use a given model should depend on practical concerns and intended use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lagu et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (n=13,163). Mortality prediction models (LAPS2, Premier+, Premier, ADHERE, EFFECT, GWTG-Eapen, GWTG-Peterson) vs. Comparison among models was evaluated on Discrimination for in-hospital mortality (C-statistic) (C-statistic 0.80 for LAPS2, 0.81 for Premier+, 95% CI 0.78-0.82, p=<0.001). The LAPS2 and Premier+ models demonstrated the highest discrimination for predicting in-hospital mortality in acute decompensated heart failure, with C-statistics of 0.80 and 0.81, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: